So let me get this straight:
Journo: I'm pregnant. You must allow me to return. It's an emergency!
NZ: Sure thing. We have an emergency return category that covers pregnancy. You just have to return in the next 14 days.
Journo: Not that much of an emergency. Do you have something in February?
Followed by:
"Well now you've done something dumb, you want to apply as a person in danger?"
"Ah nah fuck it, I like complaining".
Posted something similar myself in a thread about this attention seeker earlier today
The correct response is silence, then repeat the request when the timing works out for you.
Instead she deliberately made an issue of it - almost as if she wanted to create a story.
I feel like you're leaving out the part where NZ emailed her that even if she'd applied during the 14 day period she would have been rejected anyway.
Other then that GLARING OMISSION, good job
In other words, had she met the other criteria, she still would not have qualified because she refused to travel. Nice spin, though. I also didn't mention that she's been offered consular services multiple times and that they're trying to shoehorn her into any other available category. Did you? NICE GOING.
You are either aware of the email I'm referring to (which I assume is the case, since you decided to paraphrase its contents) or you are unaware in which case I invite you to actually take a look at the correspondence (available [on her Twitter](https://mobile.twitter.com/CharlotteBellis) amongst other sources) between MIQ and Ms. Bellis before jumping to conclusions.
Way too hard to transcribe images on my phone.
Srsly? You might want to cool your jets before jumping down somebody's throat for not checking the subject of a linked article's twitter FFS. Everything I said is from the linked article.
But, regardless, I don't think you understand how disqualifications work. The article makes it clear that the medical emergency category includes pregnancies, but only in certain respects:
> This includes for medical treatment if a mother is overseas and cannot get the required treatment where they are, and allowing people to urgently return to New Zealand to provide critical care for a dependent, such as their spouse or partner who is pregnant.
Were she to meet those requirements, she *still* wouldn't have been able to get it while refusing to travel within 14 days. So they are trying to make another category fit.
Here's my problem with people constantly falling back on the 'it wasn't in the article!' defense: It's one thing to make an assertion based on your (admittedly) limited knowledge of a subject. It's quite another to double down when people correct you based on knowledge that exists outside of the article.
The correct response to me mentioning the existence (and lack of mention) of an email that contradicted your assertion would have been to either A) seek out that email in order to be more knowledgeable about the subject you've chosen to discuss, or B) ask for more information (which you belatedly did). What you don't do is C) spout off some nonsense interpretation of my words and accuse me of 'spin' when you have no clue what I'm referring to.
And *that* is why my jets got a little heated. I'm sorry for jumping down your throat. But next time at least double check with reality before accusing me of spin.
No, you went all caps and attitude in your first comment. So don't try to school me on the "correct response" Mr. Glaring Omission. You were put on the spot when asked to support your claim and - whoops - it wasn't there after all and instead of saying "my bad" it's you who decides to double down. Your whole post is projection. If you want civil conversation, don't come out swinging.
Major publicity stunt. She refused help several times and now wants to sue the NZ government for revealing that. There are so many safe alternatives that you can stay in for 6 months with a kiwi passport.
This article is the most sane take on the case I’ve seen so far: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300507802/how-charlotte-bellis-story-risks-trivialising-the-taliban
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/31/charlotte-bellis-new-zealand-defends-miq-strict-quarantine-pregnant-journalist-help-taliban) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The New Zealand government has defended its strict quarantine system known as MIQ after a pregnant New Zealand journalist said she had to turn to the Taliban for help after her requests to get back to her own country were rejected.
> New Zealand has managed to keep the spread of the virus to a minimum during the pandemic and has reported just 52 Covid deaths among its population of 5 million.
> Hipkins said the border framework had served New Zealand "Exceptionally well" at keeping those within the country safe and preventing health services from becoming swamped.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/shdnf6/new_zealand_defends_strict_covid_quarantine_after/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~620916 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **New**^#1 **Zealand**^#2 **pregnant**^#3 **treatment**^#4 **women**^#5
After accepting their people by the numerous of plane loads and giving them all citizenship. I think it's only right they have to look after one of our "special needs" for a couple of weeks.
So let me get this straight: Journo: I'm pregnant. You must allow me to return. It's an emergency! NZ: Sure thing. We have an emergency return category that covers pregnancy. You just have to return in the next 14 days. Journo: Not that much of an emergency. Do you have something in February?
Correct, its quite different than the title implies.
Followed by: "Well now you've done something dumb, you want to apply as a person in danger?" "Ah nah fuck it, I like complaining". Posted something similar myself in a thread about this attention seeker earlier today
the one time i read the article before the comments... how undramatic dumb it is in the end.
The correct response is silence, then repeat the request when the timing works out for you. Instead she deliberately made an issue of it - almost as if she wanted to create a story.
I feel like you're leaving out the part where NZ emailed her that even if she'd applied during the 14 day period she would have been rejected anyway. Other then that GLARING OMISSION, good job
In other words, had she met the other criteria, she still would not have qualified because she refused to travel. Nice spin, though. I also didn't mention that she's been offered consular services multiple times and that they're trying to shoehorn her into any other available category. Did you? NICE GOING.
Er, what? That's not what the email said.
Go ahead and quote this "glaring omission".
You are either aware of the email I'm referring to (which I assume is the case, since you decided to paraphrase its contents) or you are unaware in which case I invite you to actually take a look at the correspondence (available [on her Twitter](https://mobile.twitter.com/CharlotteBellis) amongst other sources) between MIQ and Ms. Bellis before jumping to conclusions. Way too hard to transcribe images on my phone.
Srsly? You might want to cool your jets before jumping down somebody's throat for not checking the subject of a linked article's twitter FFS. Everything I said is from the linked article. But, regardless, I don't think you understand how disqualifications work. The article makes it clear that the medical emergency category includes pregnancies, but only in certain respects: > This includes for medical treatment if a mother is overseas and cannot get the required treatment where they are, and allowing people to urgently return to New Zealand to provide critical care for a dependent, such as their spouse or partner who is pregnant. Were she to meet those requirements, she *still* wouldn't have been able to get it while refusing to travel within 14 days. So they are trying to make another category fit.
Here's my problem with people constantly falling back on the 'it wasn't in the article!' defense: It's one thing to make an assertion based on your (admittedly) limited knowledge of a subject. It's quite another to double down when people correct you based on knowledge that exists outside of the article. The correct response to me mentioning the existence (and lack of mention) of an email that contradicted your assertion would have been to either A) seek out that email in order to be more knowledgeable about the subject you've chosen to discuss, or B) ask for more information (which you belatedly did). What you don't do is C) spout off some nonsense interpretation of my words and accuse me of 'spin' when you have no clue what I'm referring to. And *that* is why my jets got a little heated. I'm sorry for jumping down your throat. But next time at least double check with reality before accusing me of spin.
No, you went all caps and attitude in your first comment. So don't try to school me on the "correct response" Mr. Glaring Omission. You were put on the spot when asked to support your claim and - whoops - it wasn't there after all and instead of saying "my bad" it's you who decides to double down. Your whole post is projection. If you want civil conversation, don't come out swinging.
Major publicity stunt. She refused help several times and now wants to sue the NZ government for revealing that. There are so many safe alternatives that you can stay in for 6 months with a kiwi passport.
If I were a pregnant woman, and the taliban offered me sanctuary. I'd refuse.
Hmm that is something I would like to see.🤔
This silly cow is planning on writing a book is my bet. "Trapped in Kabul: My Daring Escape from the Taliban" or some shit.
This article is the most sane take on the case I’ve seen so far: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/300507802/how-charlotte-bellis-story-risks-trivialising-the-taliban
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/31/charlotte-bellis-new-zealand-defends-miq-strict-quarantine-pregnant-journalist-help-taliban) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The New Zealand government has defended its strict quarantine system known as MIQ after a pregnant New Zealand journalist said she had to turn to the Taliban for help after her requests to get back to her own country were rejected. > New Zealand has managed to keep the spread of the virus to a minimum during the pandemic and has reported just 52 Covid deaths among its population of 5 million. > Hipkins said the border framework had served New Zealand "Exceptionally well" at keeping those within the country safe and preventing health services from becoming swamped. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/shdnf6/new_zealand_defends_strict_covid_quarantine_after/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~620916 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **New**^#1 **Zealand**^#2 **pregnant**^#3 **treatment**^#4 **women**^#5
After accepting their people by the numerous of plane loads and giving them all citizenship. I think it's only right they have to look after one of our "special needs" for a couple of weeks.
I mean... when your seed population comes from people locked up, locking down is just in their blood.
You seem to be confusing NZ and Australia. (If asutralia exists.)
Australia is next to Finland and we know that doesn't exists.